My Home Ideas

Special Offers

Be the first to know about This Old House contests, sweepstakes, and events and receive special offers and promotions from your favorite home improvement brands. We'll even send you regular reminders to enter our sweepstakes.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tear It Down

I'm just kidding, but this looks like another complete gut job. The web-cam does not seem to be working but it looks like the home is being stripped down to the studs. Not much of the original home is left.

I know the purpose of the program is to show a home being remodeled, but if they were to approach this from an economic point of view, it would be cheaper to tear the building down and build a new home(s).

Re: Tear It Down

I agree, What percentage of the original 1870 home will be left at end of show. From the first to second episode it has gone from 1 foundation wall replaced to 2, Firewall and stairs wwent from reused to replaced, bay window went from reused to replaced, the front entry was replaced, the original sheathing was ok to new sheathing covering original sheathing, the entire roof structure not just the roof was replaced. The original question was to the contractor was if it shouldn't be torn down, the decision not to looks more questionable by the episode. how do we influence the show to state the final percentage of the original structure remains at completion?

Re: Tear It Down

I'm not a fan of old buildings either, but I understand why someone would try to salvage one. There are many reasons to work with an old structure over razing and building new, the first of which is that many historic provinces won't allow "new" construction, you can only rehab what is there AND it has to be done to period architecture, at least on the outside. Some folks love old structures and restoring them to their original glory. Old homes have a character to them, even when massively reconstructed, that new construction cannot simulate or replicate. The list goes on.

BTW, I'd rather have a 100 year old home than any of the garbage that now passes for housing.

I suffer from CDO ... Its like OCD, but in alphabetical order, LIKE IT SHOULD BE!!!

Re: Tear It Down

Originally Posted by A. Spruce

BTW, I'd rather have a 100 year old home than any of the garbage that now passes for housing.

Yes and no.
As the saying goes .... they don't build them like they used to ... is sometimes a good thing. Modern building techniques can be far better ( for the most part ) than some older methods. It depends on *who* is doing the work that makes the difference.

Re: Tear It Down

Originally Posted by canuk

Yes and no.
As the saying goes .... they don't build them like they used to ... is sometimes a good thing. Modern building techniques can be far better ( for the most part ) than some older methods. It depends on *who* is doing the work that makes the difference.

Re: Tear It Down

not sure if this would have applied to this project, but here in ottawa Canada, builders can often get around certain regulations by "renovating" an old house as opposed to ripping down and starting fresh. obviously, in some cases, getting permits and whatnot are a bit easier too.
I.E. I've seen/heard of situations where setbacks/height or size restrictions etc have changed multiple times in certain neighborhoods, in one case being significantly reduced on one side of the house and being significantly increased on another side. In *most* cases, the setbacks/regulations in place at the time the specific portion of the house was built take precedence, unless it's obvious that it's clearly way over the property line/in violation of other key safety violations. We've seen it done in a few instances where a builder will rip down sections of a house where following the new setbacks/regulations will be an advantage, and leave one or two corners where the old setbacks/regulations will be beneficial.

Re: Tear It Down

That would be true in my hometown in VA. If my parents house burned down or got hit in a tornado, was more then 50% damaged, they could only rebuilt it on the original pad (basement walls), one side of which is 3'-0ft. from the property line on one side. THERE is 25'ft. plus on the other side, (grass) but they would not be allowed to shift it over, even if they used part of the basement walls for a side deck, (on top, on that other side)!!!

Re: Tear It Down

In my area, permits and fees for new construction are obscenely high. Permits for remodels are cheap, and there are no impact fees.

A commercial structure in a nearby town was torn down -- all except for floor structure of the second floor (all the walls were removed). It was rather amusing to see the second floor "floating" on cribbing while the foundation, slab, walls, and roof were completely replaced.

All to avoid the impact fees and, probably, parking area requirements that would be associated with new construction.

(The project was actually delayed for several months by the discovery and required mitigation of underground fuel tanks. I guess the money they saved on permits helped pay for that!)

The "Senior Member" designation under my name doesn't mean I know a lot, it just means I talk a lot.I've been a DIYer since I was 12 (thanks, Dad!). I have read several books on various home improvement topics. I do not have any current code books I can refer to. I was an apprentice plumber for two years.